Project Wareham

Arrive into the down platform and reverse and depart from there - this does however limit the timetableing options and is less than optimal conenctions wise.

Unless Network Rail unillaterally close the pedestrian crossing anyway, cutting Wareham in half for pedestrians who can't use steps

My guess is that Network Rail will have a "Hissy Fit" and close it anyway.

David R

 

Is the planned date still late June despite the DMU issues? Is everything else going to plan?

 

News about the footbridge

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne..._plans_rejected_due_to____excessive_scale___/

The comments section with the reference to Plumpton may be relevant

David R

 

The DMU's were scheduled for completion in December so a small delay due to the wheelsets won't be a problem. but they will be required well before June for training. Don't believe that this is a showstopper (yet).

David R

 

Am I correct in saying they will have 2 117s and a 121 that will be fully mainline certified?

 

It is actually a permissive crossing and leased to Dorset County Council. The lease expires in 23 years time I believe.
There is no public right of way across the crossing.. so, in theory, if DCC want to hand back the lease (it costs them circ 120K a year for the gate keepers) the NR could close the crossing..

 

1 x 117 and a 121. The other 117 at Eastleigh is being cannibalised for spares

David R

 

Why did the 108 go to Eastleigh a while ago then and didn't they scrap a 101 for spares?

 

The Class 108 DMU went to Eastleigh for overhaul for use on SR 'internal' (ie Swanage - Norden) services. As you say, a 101 unit was also scrapped for spares last year; the attached photo is probably the last photo of that unit, taken on 29 October 2014.

 

So they are scrapping a lot of units. If the 117 brakes down doesn't that mean they will only be able to use the bubble car? That will be a busy train!

 

It would depend what the 117 failed with; the advantage of operation with DMMU's in this respect is that there is a lot of redundancy built in with 3 powered cars out of 4. For example, if one of the 117 power cars developed an engine fault (just to pick a simple example), it would be a relatively simple matter of simply taking out only that vehicle for repair, which would still leave you with a 3 car set (even if it added in the time needed to shunt it to ensure a driving cab was on the outer end). Even if the vehicle that failed was the DMBS, you will still have the brake van in the 121 available to use.

With the amount of additional capacity in terms of engines, exhausters etc that the chosen units gives, it should (hopefully!) reduce the possibility of an issue such as a failure being a show-stopper once the service starts, particularly with regard to clearing the main line.

 

It seems silly to me to scrap one unit when it will leave you with little left. Could they not just use it for internal services or leave it in a siding and get it mainline certified later?

 

Rumpole may be better placed to explain this than me, but my understanding is that only the 117 and 121 are capable of certification for mainline use, as for reasons that totally escape me, those classes of Heritage DMMU have been declared to be not of Mark 1 type construction and therefore not subject to the 2002 ban on Mark 1 stock (and thus not needing an exemption).

This may be something to do with the 121 still being in use on the mainline (Chiltern) - the 121 is the single car version of the 117 and so has been "investigated" whilst other classes of Heritage DMMU have not, and therefore can't be certified for Mainline use

David R

 

The two units at Eastleigh will give one good unit, and a quantity of spares to keep that unit running. In my opinion (and I emphasise that this is my opinion and not the Swanage Railway talking), it is far preferable to have it this way round, than to have 6 cars (ie the two 117's) that you are permanently having to work on to keep them in traffic, and no spares should they go wrong. Given the limited number of units that will be available for the Wareham service, having a stock of spares to reduce any down time due to failure is an important consideration.

Unfortunately one of the things that we will always be short of at Swanage is space; we just don't have the room to keep a 3 car 117 unit on the off-chance that we might be able to get it running at some point in the future.

 

I still don't agree but would it be possible if you had 3 121 units to convert it into a 117. Chiltern will eventually need to get rid of theirs so you could possibly convert them into a 117.

 

Yes - you could run them in multiple but you'd have no gangways connecting each car and 3 lots of guards accomodation reducing seating capacity. Remember these units are for the initial 2 year trial and at least get the service up and running so we will probably have to wait and see what may be available in a few years time.

Hopefully something better than Pacers!

David R

 

Please Please Not Pacers!!!!
I think using the 117 is good because it is still a heritage unit that fits with the fact the Swanage is a Heritage railway. What I meant was could you rebuild the 3 121s to form a 117 not just connect them.

 

Good to see that some (well at least one) of the local Holiday Parks are now starting to advertise the availablity of the travel to Swanage by train message

https://www.shorefield.co.uk/blog/swanage-wareham-railway

David R

 

It's more or less what I said in post No. 37, not that I would use the phrase "pedestrian footbridge". Another journalist from the school of tautology! The argument about extra walking time is total nonsense. As for scale, if you want a disabled-compliant ramp at 1 in 20 gradient this is the scale you get. There is some justification for the design objections. NR could do better.

 

I might have to take back that statement. Someone (definately NOT an official source) is stating that the delivery for the replacement axles is quoted at 16 weeks, and the new bearings at 28 weeks as they have to come from America. If (and I stress IF) true that could be a show stopper.

David R